Talk:Big Mac

Big Mac
A name for a McDonald's product. Outside of McDonald's, you will never find a Big Mac. You can't go to the grocery store and buy a Big Mac. All Big Macs come from McDonald's, hence Delete. Jooge 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument doesn’t make any sense to me. Keep. —Stephen 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added the following citation from a professional publication that mentions “Big Mac” but neither “hamburger” nor “McDonald's”:
 * 2001, Bjørn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Cambridge University Press, page 73:
 * In a light-hearted vein, the weekly news magazine The Economist has tested the PPP index by producing its own Big Mac index. This shows how much a standardized product such as a Big Mac costs in different countries and the result is actually surprisingly close to the PPP index.
 * Many such citations are available. Readers are expected to know what a Big Mac is without consulting an encyclopedia.  Rod (A. Smith) 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But that citation is still referring directly to the trademark product. --Connel MacKenzie 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Silly to have non-generic trademarks "defined."  --Big Mac 07:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep' per Rod (A. Smith) . Thryduulf 10:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This usage is covered by the proposed CFI for brand names - and the entry has three independant citations spanning more than three years without context and from sources that do not relate to the term. bd2412 T 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Rod, BD once as cited. DAVilla 23:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But those citations don't count, as per the proposal. They all refer to the trademarked "thing" directly.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are refering to this proposal. If so, I don't see anything in there that disqualifies a citation because it refers to a trademarked item.  Are you talking about a different proposal or did you read this one differently from how I read it?  Rod (A. Smith) 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the one I'm reading: "Furthermore, the sources of these citations: 1. must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailors, marketers, and advertizers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates; and 2. must not identify any such parties." --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see anything in that text you quoted that disqualifies citations for mentioning trademarked items. The citations I gave (1) are independent of any parties with economic interest in the product and (2) do not identify any such party, so the citations appear to be valid within the criteria of that proposal.  I understand that you hope to disqualify citations that refer to trade marked items, but the proposal says nothing of the sort.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon my incredulity, but how can you suggest "Big Mac" isn't a trademark? --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He isn't. Rod is saying:
 * The authors of the citations do not have any economic interest in the product.
 * The sources of the citations do not refer to any parties that have economic interest in the product, i.e. they talk about the Big Mac without mentioning that it is a trademark, or that it is product of the McDonalds Corporation. (Similarly I could write about the Windows operating system without mentioning that the name "Windows" is trademarked. This does not alter the fact that it is trademarked.)
 * That it is his (Rod's) understanding that your (Connel's) opinion that citations which refer to trademarked items do not count towards verification for our purposes.
 * That despite your opinion (or at least his understanding of your opinion), the proposal does not exclude such citations. Thryduulf 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is an accurate representation, Thryduulf.  I am not denying the trademark status of "Big Mac".  I am asserting that the proposal allows trademarked words and phrases.  Rod (A. Smith) 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, none of those citations indicate that a Big Mac is a kind of hamburger or sandwich. The closest any of them come is the one that refers to "exercising to 'burn off the Big Mac' they ate for lunch," which at least indicates that the Big Mac is food (but it could just as easily be a cake or a steak). However, none of the other three cites even indicate that it is a food item! bd2412 T 15:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they aren't being used generically at all; they are referring directly to the trademarked product! --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be used "generically", they need to be used "attributively". These are clearly being used "attributively". So, I reiterate, keep. bd2412 T 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * NB: “attributively” is confusing to me because it makes me think of attributive descriptors, e.g. the bold terms in “apple pie”, “big house”, and “taco stand”. What other sense of “attributively” do you mean?  Rod (A. Smith) 18:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think that somewhere between Big Mac Index and Big Mac attack (a term which has different non-compositional meanings in popular culture and cryptography), this meets the criterion of attributive use.  Also note b.g.c. hits for "big mac of", which suggest that this term has acquired a certain cultural significance beyond burgers.  -- Visviva 06:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)